How and When Brands Should Jump Into Trump-Charged Issues

The country's charged political environment is engulfing even
the most benign brands, as a divided populace scrutinizes every
move for signs of partisanship. With the president incessantly
tweeting—sometimes directly at marketers like Delta and L.L.
Bean—and new executive orders and policies emerging and
inciting emotion and protests nationwide, it's near impossible for
brands to find cover. But should they keep out of the fray?
According to communications experts, brands can absolutely join the
discussion, but they have to ask a few key questions first.

"As far as getting involved in particular issues, some questions
to ask include: How important is your relationship with the
administration? What's your status or relationship with the
administration and have you been active in building a relationship
with key government officials?" said Jim Moorhead, senior counselor
in APCO Worldwide's International Advisory Council.

He added that brands also have to ask themselves, "Is this issue
important to you from a business or values standpoint and do your
stakeholders and employees expect to hear from you on this
issue?"

Clearly, that was the motivation for Starbucks, which has been a
leader for years in human rights issues such as equal treatment of
the LGBTQ community, to take action. The coffee company recently
made a statement against President Donald Trump's executive order
on immigration to bar Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.,
suspend all refugee admissions for 120 days, and block citizens
from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from
entering the U.S. for 90 days. What's more, Starbucks plans to hire
10,000 refugees over the next five years.

Rob Flaherty, partner, chairman and CEO of Ketchum, said there's a growing expectation
for CEOs and companies to at least decide if they're going to
comment on social issues. If they do, they must be clear in their
statements.

"First off, you should delineate whether you're responding to
the factual impact of a policy on employees or customers of your
brand, or are you offering opinions for or against a policy on
principle? There's a big difference," said Mr. Flaherty.

When it comes to the immigration ban, Mr. Flaherty said, if a
brand does business or has employees in any of the seven impacted
countries, it must figure out how to communicate on the
issue—either with factual commentary or personal beliefs.

But in this environment, every business decision can take on
political undertones, intended or not. Last weekend, Uber saw major
social media backlash, including a trending hashtag, #DeleteUber,
after it suspended surge pricing at JFK Airport in New York City
during a taxi strike against Mr. Trump's immigration order. To make
up for the blunder, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick tweeted the next day
that the travel ban "is against everything Uber stands for."

Because the news cycle is so fleeting nowadays, Josh Isay,
managing director at SKDKnickerbocker, said it's important for
companies to look at the long play when deciding to take either an
oppositional or supportive voice on any policy. "It has to be seen
with a long-term view. Not just 'Am I going to gain customers on a
Saturday at JFK?' but rather 'What does this say about my brand and
positioning in the marketplace?' "

But what about the times when a brand gets thrown into a
conversation without any warning? President Trump recently put L.L.
Bean in the hot seat by thanking via Twitter the founder's
granddaughter, who sits on the retailer's board but is not an
executive, for donating money to his campaign. He also tweeted,
"Buy L.L. Bean."

The tweet prompted anti-Trump group Grab Your Wallet to put L.L.
Bean on its boycott list. To extinguish the fire, L.L. Bean
released a statement on Facebook saying that the company, which has
50-plus family member-owners, "does not endorse political
candidates, take positions on political matters, or make political
contributions."

Delta also took a direct Twitter hit from the White House when
the president blamed airport congestion not on his immigration
policy, but on the airline's computer glitch. Delta posted to
Twitter updates on the flight delays for its fliers, but did not
tweet a response to the president.

If a Trump tweet directly addresses a business, Harlan Loeb,
global chair of Edelman's crisis and risk practice, said the
company should respond, "but engage purely on fact and be short and
to the point." He added that there's no reason to "poke the bear"
or act antagonistically, but a brand should definitely engage if
specifically called out.

Mike Fernandez, CEO of Burson-Marsteller USA, said the decision to
respond or not to a direct tweet depends on the situation. "When
there's a person in your family who is known for making statements
that you prefer them not to, sometimes it's best to just ignore
them, and then other times, if it hits at the core of what your
brand is all about, you may find a need to respond," he said.

Lindsay Stein is an agency reporter at Ad Age, mainly covering creative, digital and PR. Prior to Ad Age, she was a senior consumer marketing reporter at PRWeek. When she's not writing – or training for obstacle course runs – she's working on personal projects, including film production.